It is actually difficult to think of any case where diplomacy has served to “bridge the gap” with a hostile or enemy nation. Which is hardly to say that such diplomacy has not been tried. Time and time again, American and other Western statesmen have undertaken strenuous diplomatic efforts at the highest levels in order to reach and change the minds of enemy leaders. As the history of cold-war summitry attests, the results have been at best trivial, at worst deleterious.

The one thing about talking first, is when you finally shoot them, ppl can't say you didn't try....:up:

FinFatale

09-17-2008, 04:08 PM

The one thing about talking first, is when you finally shoot them, ppl can't say you didn't try....:up:

.

To say that talking with our enemies has more often done harm than good does not mean that we should always avoid it. But when we do speak, it is essential that we eschew the conceit that, whoever they may be and whatever their own purposes, it lies within our power to manipulate or seduce them into becoming friends or serving our interests.

FinFatale

09-17-2008, 04:08 PM

php code???? obviously I hit the wrong tag! lol

Gonzo

09-17-2008, 04:16 PM

php code???? obviously I hit the wrong tag! lol
:lol: fixed. :hi5:

WSE

09-17-2008, 04:21 PM

I will say one example I mention a lot about diplomacy working

with Egypt, a big enemy of the US in the 60's and 70's due to their wars with Israel. Under US involvement with president Carter, a peace agreement was signed between them and Israel

this agreement was in a large part signed because of US Aid. To this day, the country that receives the second most US Aid per year is.............Egypt. That was part of the agreement.

Did the agreement work? Yes- Israel and Egypt have had a lasting peace. Did is serve US interests? Yes. Was it done through diplomacy? Yes.

link stating how we started giving them aid with the signing of the agreement with Israel- http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/

diplomacy as its finest. One of the few things Carter did well imo.

LouPhinFan

09-17-2008, 04:59 PM

I will say one example I mention a lot about diplomacy working

with Egypt, a big enemy of the US in the 60's and 70's due to their wars with Israel. Under US involvement with president Carter, a peace agreement was signed between them and Israel

this agreement was in a large part signed because of US Aid. To this day, the country that receives the second most US Aid per year is.............Egypt. That was part of the agreement.

Did the agreement work? Yes- Israel and Egypt have had a lasting peace. Did is serve US interests? Yes. Was it done through diplomacy? Yes.

link stating how we started giving them aid with the signing of the agreement with Israel- http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/

diplomacy as its finest. One of the few things Carter did well imo.

That's fine and dandy that it worked with Egypt, but Iran is a totally different ballgame. They have already been offered lucrative incentive packages to halt their nuclear program and even to be allowed to continue with it as long as there is international oversight and they still won't accept it. The possiblity of nuclear weapons was not an issue with Egypt. They really had very little reason NOT to accept the deal.

Iran has no intention of halting their nuclear program. They simply want to string the rest of the international community along until they acheive the bomb and then they can solidify their position as a world power in the ME. There's no use in talking to Iran because it will just be used as a stall tactic while they proceed with their weapon program. Talking is only productive if the other party is interested in what you have to say and Iran has no interest except finding a way to solidify its power.

MDFINFAN

09-17-2008, 05:10 PM

That's fine and dandy that it worked with Egypt, but Iran is a totally different ballgame. They have already been offered lucrative incentive packages to halt their nuclear program and even to be allowed to continue with it as long as there is international oversight and they still won't accept it. The possiblity of nuclear weapons was not an issue with Egypt. They really had very little reason NOT to accept the deal.

Iran has no intention of halting their nuclear program. They simply want to string the rest of the international community along until they acheive the bomb and then they can solidify their position as a world power in the ME. There's no use in talking to Iran because it will just be used as a stall tactic while they proceed with their weapon program. Talking is only productive if the other party is interested in what you have to say and Iran has no interest except finding a way to solidify its power.

Iran.
I'll say this much since we don't know the end game at this time, but since we've started talking to them, I haven't seem the daily attacks back and forth....at least we can say we gave diplomacy a shot..and if it breaks down and we have to take futher action..there'll be less of a backlash..

WSE

09-17-2008, 05:12 PM

That's fine and dandy that it worked with Egypt, but Iran is a totally different ballgame. They have already been offered lucrative incentive packages to halt their nuclear program and even to be allowed to continue with it as long as there is international oversight and they still won't accept it. The possiblity of nuclear weapons was not an issue with Egypt. They really had very little reason NOT to accept the deal.

Iran has no intention of halting their nuclear program. They simply want to string the rest of the international community along until they acheive the bomb and then they can solidify their position as a world power in the ME. There's no use in talking to Iran because it will just be used as a stall tactic while they proceed with their weapon program. Talking is only productive if the other party is interested in what you have to say and Iran has no interest except finding a way to solidify its power.

of course, all situations have differences

It is actually difficult to think of any case where diplomacy has served to “bridge the gap” with a hostile or enemy nation. Which is hardly to say that such diplomacy has not been tried. Time and time again, American and other Western statesmen have undertaken strenuous diplomatic efforts at the highest levels in order to reach and change the minds of enemy leaders. As the history of cold-war summitry attests, the results have been at best trivial, at worst deleterious.

this is the original quote, and this is what I responded to

It was said its hard to think of a case with diplomacy solving a problem with the hostile nation, and I simply stated one that I know of, and know of well

is Iran a different situation? Yes. Does it mean diplomacy cant solve it? No.

Dolphan7

09-18-2008, 05:20 PM

I think diplomacy can work and when it does - use it. But when it doesn't, then what?

Believe it or not here we are again in another situation very similar to Iraq.

Out of control leaders, seeking WMD's, threat within the region, supporter of terrorism.

I mean all the things that we thought were true in Iraq, but later were found to be untrue, are true with Iran.

What are we going to do if diplomacy does not work. If sanctions don't work. If blockades don't work.

What?

Are we then willing to use military force to get them to do what we (the world, the US) want?